The Animal Liberation Front should be listed as a proscribed terrorist group

Toerminalis -= cfh – like hunts then? Organised in cells with hierarchies within the cells and using violence and intimidation to further their aims while breaking the law?

no they are law abiding citizens ignoringobeyoing the law for their joyous pursuit of traditional country [ I had to be careful with the spelling there] sports
**** lefty TJ

If you own a pet, could you put up with a theoretical similar animal being used exclusively for tests?

Terrorist? If someone is trying to get a foreign force out their homeland does this make them a Terrorist?

I am the last person to brand anyone a terrorist, I think that the terrorism powers taken by this country are totally disproportionate to the threat so it is not lightly that I suggest the ALF are in fact a terrorist organisation.

There are loads of peaceful pro hunt lobbyists and loads of animal rights groups who engage in perfectly legal protests that should be lauded as a part of our democratic system. There are also people who use violence and intimidation on both sides of the animal welfare debate and whether they are pro or anti, makes no difference, they are still employing the tactics of terror to further their political aims.

The important distinction is that we were talking about the ALF, a group who have consistently advocated violence and intimidation. Personally I cannot think of a single pro hunt group that has so publicly and so brazenly employed the tactics of terror but I am sure they exist.

No violence or intimidation around my hunts, TJ. Oh, and we don’t break the law either. 😉

Torminalis.

I am being factitious but there is a real point behind it. Its very hard to define what terrorism is and if you draw the definition loosely then all sorts of groups get added in such as the hunts, draw it tightly and the ALF don’t fit.

CFH – really? Which hunt? Most of them use violence and intimidation against hunt sabs and most break the law

Not biting any more, TJ, sorry.

If you own a pet, could you put up with a theoretical similar animal being used exclusively for tests?

I have a dog I love very much but I can without hesitation say yes. Animals simply do not have the same rights as people.

Terrorist? If someone is trying to get a foreign force out their homeland does this make them a Terrorist?

Depends who you ask, but I for one say no.

If however this group was a marginal minority of the population at large, threatening innocent people with violence for what they perceive to be morally unacceptable then quite possibly yes.

TJ, I define terrorism thus:

The use of violence and intimidation against people to further the political aims of a particular group. this is a pretty widely accepted definition.

see the dictionary definition. for further clarification.

So yeah, I think there are elements of the pro hunt lobby, the animal rights lobby and loads of others that fall under the catch all heading of terrorist. I am not saying that the government response to some terrorist groups is not disproportionate, I am not saying that some groups are not worse than others, I am not saying that some of the ‘terrorists’ are not justified, I am just saying that I believe that the ALF are a much better use of anti terrorist resources than removing photographers from public places and removing ageing MPs from party conferences.

There really is no need for vivesection anymore. Computer models have eradicated the need for it, and it’s those that are involved in it that perpetuate it.

However:

ALF are a vicious, terrorist organisation. The definition of terroism is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”.

They fit that definition. If other organisations fit into that bill is debatable.

Terrorist? If someone is trying to get a foreign force out their homeland does this make them a Terrorist?

No, as you’re fighting a foreign military force, not civilians. It’s why the IRA and UVF et al were terrorists.

Teej, the ALF are terrorists as they are activley employing these tactics in order to terrorise. A hunt aren’t terrorists, as their prescribed aim is the hunting of animals, not to go out and beat up hunt saboteurs. Whether they actually do beat up HSs is by the by when it comes to terrorism.

…the ALF, a group who have consistently advocated violence

Can you give some examples of the ALF advocating violence against people, as opposed to advocating damage to property. There is a significant difference.

Ok, correction on my part. I can’t get onto the ALF website, but wiki has their motto as “Any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions are taken not to harm human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action”. This greys the situation slightly as they don’t fullfil the definition in the respect of causing harm to civilians to further their aims, but doesn’t preclude intimidation or cohercion, which is a part of terrorism.

CaptainFlashheart – Member

Not biting any more, TJ, sorry. S’alright – we have had this one before and no ones mind will get changed

Teh point about the ALF not threatening harm to people is key.

Also stuff gets blamed on the ALF that is not their responsibility and it is not a homogeneous movement anyway

If intimidation and coercion makes yo a terrorist then Hunts, countryside alliance, fathes for justice, Greenpeace, all fall under the remit.

If you own a pet, could you put up with a theoretical similar animal being used exclusively for tests?

Erm, personally I would regard that as no great problem… having had pet rats, and pet dogs – although I’ve never had a pet monkey, and who the **** would want a pet mouse? they bloody stink! 😆

Terrorist? If someone is trying to get a foreign force out their homeland does this make them a Terrorist?

Well, the rules for that are quite simple, and laid down under Article 44 of the 1977 protocol 1 addition to the 1949 Geneva conventions…

In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

So, if you are not carrying arms openly during preparations for an attack, or not distinguishing yourself from the civilian population, then I’d say that, yes, you’re not a ‘legal combatant’ and are therefore a terrorist.

“S’alright – we have had this one before and no ones mind will get changed“

I say that should be the STW motto.

If intimidation and coercion makes yo a terrorist then Hunts, countryside alliance, fathes for justice, Greenpeace, all fall under the remit.

No, as above it has to be one of your aims for you to be a terrorist organisation.

Can you give some examples of the ALF advocating violence against people, as opposed to advocating damage to property. There is a significant difference.

Does digging up someone’s gran count as violence? Personally I am not sure. They do seem to have scant regard for the welfare of those people whose homes/cars/businesses they firebomb. Arson is boasted as one of their main tools in their armoury. I can’t be arsed to split hairs but most of those activities would have me feeling pretty terrorised.

here really is no need for vivesection anymore. Computer models have eradicated the need for it…

If only that were true.. Unfortunately I’ve seen the unpredictability of computer modeled dose rates go very, very wrong when tested in vivo… plus of course its impossible to model a disorder or body mechanism that we don’t actually understand, and given our level of knowledge of the causes and development of cancer, let alone other disorders, it will be a very long time before that is possible in a reliable manner.

most vivisection is completely needless and there are medical scientists who think that animal testing is no needed at all as it is so innacurate

I guess things have got tightened up but when I was at uni back a decade or three post grad students were doing animal experiments to replicate known results. Completely useless

There can be no excuse for animal experimentation for cosmetics.

Torminalis, I’ll take that as a No, then. 😛

I don’t know why you’re ‘defending’ the ALF, TJ. Some of their members are terrorists, simple as that. Nasty scum who show that that don’t actually care about life, if they go round bombing people.

Personally, I don’t believe any animal should be made to suffer unnecessarily. To me, fox hunting is an outdated barbaric custom perpetuated so that insecure inadequate types can feel powerful. Simple as that, it’s the truth.

As for medical research; millions of people benefit as a result of experiments that have been made on animals. If the suffering of a monkey or a dog can then lead to human lives being saved and people cured of terrible ailments, then I’m afraid that’s that. As mentioned, new techniques have reduced the need for vivisection, but if there is still a need for it, for the benefit of humanity, then sorry Fido, but I’m higher up the scale. Tough.

Ironic, how we bomb the **** out of each other over oil, demonise each others customs etc, but the minute someone mentions a lickle bunny wabbit being harmed, people go mental. If these ALF terrorist scum care so much about life, why don’t they actively protest about the treatment of millions of people worldwide, suffering so that they can have the luxury of time to worry about fluffy innocent creatures?

I’m still upset from last night btw, so don’t start.

Animals simply do not have the same rights as people.

despite feeling pain and also suffering.
200 years ago we said that about blacks, non landowners, gays, and women.
Difficult one but we cannot deny that animals are suffering for our knowledge base to increase ….whether this is necessary for the data[ probably] or morally justifiable [ less sure] is really an individual choice.
I am not comfortable with either animal experimentation or those who attack those who do experiment.

Unfortunately I’ve seen the unpredictability of computer modeled dose rates go very, very wrong when tested in vivo…

Can you give some examples of animal modelled dose rates going right ?

According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”

http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_8_All-you-need-to-know-in-33-facts

…if they go round bombing people

I thought we’d just established that they don’t.

Elfinsafety – Member

I don’t know why you’re ‘defending’ the ALF, TJ.

I am not. Find a single post where I have. Indeed I have slated their crimes

I merely am pointing out the daftness in labelling them as terrorists and the difficulty in actually defining terrorism in any meaningful manner

Torminalis, I’ll take that as a No, then.

If you believe their stated aims, then you are right, if you look at their actual behaviour then it is slightly less clear.

despite feeling pain and also suffering.

They do feel pain and suffering but that doesn’t seem to be an issue to people who are eating them. We try to minimise suffering but killing an animal is an intrinsically cruel act, depriving a creature of life cannot be seen any other way.

I am not comfortable with either animal experimentation or those who attack those who do experiment.

I think we can agree there.

there are medical scientists who think that animal testing is no needed at all as it is so innacurate

There are scientists who believe in homeopathy!

midlands – that quote appear all over the place, without any form of context – and without any qualification of the statement, I’d put it to you that any statistic like that without a context or qualification is useless – of course science bit is knowing which bit of the information will agree…

ALF are a vicious, terrorist organisation. The definition of terroism is “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear”.

They fit that definition

They cartainly do. If I was still fishing regularly, I’d be more afraid of them than AlQueda.
They really are very dangerous people, and I think the ‘terrorist’ tag fits them very neatly, to be fair.

As for medical research; millions of people benefit as a result of experiments that have been made on animals

Can you give some examples of these benefits ?

How do they compare with…

Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”

I merely am pointing out the daftness in labelling them as terrorists and the difficulty in actually defining terrorism in any meaningful manner

Even though it’s been pointed out to you several times, how their actions actually do fit the legal definition of terrorism? 🙄

killing an animal is an intrinsically cruel act, depriving a creature of life cannot be seen any other way.

I don’t think lions, tigers and ferrets really bother to sit and ponder the ethical and moral aspects of their behaviour.

See that? It’s a cah. It’s purpose? To provide milk and be eaten. Let it have a good run about, treat it nicely, and kill it humanely. Other than that, don’t worry about it.

I don’t think it has – not in an unequivocal way. It has been asserted they meet the criteria but not been shown to be so

Let it have a good run about, treat it nicely, and kill it humanely.

Well put. Happy animals make tasty meat. FACT!

I don’t think lions, tigers and ferrets really bother to sit and ponder the ethical and moral aspects of their behaviour.

I didn’t say nature was not cruel and I for one am perfectly happy with a certain degree of a cruelty, as a meat eater anything else would be quite hypocritical.

They cartainly do. If I was still fishing regularly, I’d be more afraid of them than AlQueda.
They really are very dangerous people, and I think the ‘terrorist’ tag fits them very neatly, to be fair.

See? PeterPoddy is too terrified to go fishing now, because of these people! 🙁

Can you give some examples of these benefits ?

Have a look yerself. Modern technology may decrease the need for animal experimentation, but in the past, scientists often have had no option.

Seriously, don’t worry about it. I’m sure there’s loads of areas where vivisection is in no way justifiable, but there are also probbly loads of areas where it has been. Of course it’s not nice for the poor creatures involved, but people make the mistake of anthropomorphising these animals; they’re not little people, they’re animals.

And if they were more intelligent, they’d probbly be doing the same to us.

Well put. Happy animals make tasty meat. FACT!

I have also heard that the adrenaline in a pheasant killed in a stressful situation improves the taste. So.. erm.. not fact.

Pheasants are stupid, suicidal birds. Probbly doing them a favour to kill them humanely really.

I mean, hedgehogs; you build them little tunnels under the motorway, and they’ll use them. Pheasants? Too thick.

Pheasants are dicks basically. FACT.

Just wanted to go back to a point Fred made above…

Ironic, how we bomb the **** out of each other over oil, demonise each others customs etc, but the minute someone mentions a lickle bunny wabbit being harmed, people go mental.

gotta say, you’re spot on here mate! in the grand scheme of what goes on in the world on a daily basis, a sense of perspective really is needed – especially given todays furore over a nice, but overall unspectacular stag that was starting to go back anyway…

See that? It’s a cah. It’s purpose? To provide milk and be eaten. Let it have a good run about, treat it nicely, and kill it humanely. Other than that, don’t worry about it.

Yes indeed. Tasty cah.

Pheasants are stupid, suicidal birds. Probbly doing them a favour to kill them humanely really.

I mean, hedgehogs; you build them little tunnels under the motorway, and they’ll use them. Pheasants? Too thick

To be fair, most phesants are bred to be shot. I reckon they’d be extinct by now if they weren’t. I’ve killed 3 by accident. They just fly straight at the most dangerous thing they can find, usually.

To be fair, most phesants are bred to be shot. I reckon they’d be extinct by now if they weren’t. I’ve killed 3 by accident. They just fly straight at the most dangerous thing they can find, usually.

The only reason the pheasant still exists is because they are bred, left to their own devices they would have killed themselves off.